Iran Loses Bid For Global Influence on UN Security Council

Pushing hard for an elected seat on the UN Security Council, Iran failed to get enough votes from its allies. All 192 United Nations members could participate in the vote to chose which nations should fill the five open seats on the UN Security Council. They decided to give the Asian seat to Japan, instead of Iran by 158 votes to 32.

The extremely influential Security Council can impose sanctions and deploy peacekeepers. Today's vote dealt a blow to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assertion that the positions of the US do not represent the attitudes of the rest of the world.

In the Europe corner, Turkey, Iceland, and Austria proved formidable opponents. But Iceland was the odd country out, as that continent's open spots went to Turkey and Austria. Uganda and Mexico ran uncontested for the African and Latin American seats. It sure would have been tricky to keep up sanctions on Iran, if they took a seat on the Security Council!

Cote, what is the difference if he said dissolution vs anything else? It's basically a threat against Israel. Plus, he called the holocaust a myth. What else? Lack of religious freedom in Iran. The Baha'i come to mind. Also, God help you if you proselytize to a Muslim in Iran. Shari’a law dictates that you will die if caught. Also, some don't believe Iran's elections were all that fair. Another? Stating that homosexuality does not exist in Iran - - another statement of his that is said to be misunderstood. How so? Because once they're found out, they're hung? It's possible...
To think that Iran is only building nuclear facilities in order to ween themselves off oil is naive. Sorry, but it is. Viktor Yushchenko has admitted that the Ukraine sold nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran. Why would they need those?
To me, mature means getting with the times, not 'old.' Yes, Iran is an old country, but they still treat women and non-Muslims with disregard...and stoning is still a form of accepted 'punishment' for minor infractions of the law.

Cote, what is the difference if he said dissolution vs anything else? It's basically a threat against Israel. Plus, he called the holocaust a myth. What else? Lack of religious freedom in Iran. The Baha'i come to mind. Also, God help you if you proselytize to a Muslim in Iran. Shari’a law dictates that you will die if caught. Also, some don't believe Iran's elections were all that fair. Another? Stating that homosexuality does not exist in Iran - - another statement of his that is said to be misunderstood. How so? Because once they're found out, they're hung? It's possible...To think that Iran is only building nuclear facilities in order to ween themselves off oil is naive. Sorry, but it is. Viktor Yushchenko has admitted that the Ukraine sold nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran. Why would they need those?To me, mature means getting with the times, not 'old.' Yes, Iran is an old country, but they still treat women and non-Muslims with disregard...and stoning is still a form of accepted 'punishment' for minor infractions of the law.

"And if we're going to make the age of a particular civilization a qualification for international influence or UN Security Council inclusion, then the US wouldn't be influential or seated at all."That's true. If age is really all that important, then we'd still be in diapers. We're darn near infants compared to most other civilizations.

"And if we're going to make the age of a particular civilization a qualification for international influence or UN Security Council inclusion, then the US wouldn't be influential or seated at all."
That's true. If age is really all that important, then we'd still be in diapers. We're darn near infants compared to most other civilizations.

Actually, Persian civilization and the Persian empire are some of the world's oldest; the first Persian Empire, the Medes, began in the eighth century BC, while a strong central Japanese state didn't appear until the eighth century AD.
:shrug: Just sayin'. And if we're going to make the age of a particular civilization a qualification for international influence or UN Security Council inclusion, then the US wouldn't be influential or seated at all.

Actually, Persian civilization and the Persian empire are some of the world's oldest; the first Persian Empire, the Medes, began in the eighth century BC, while a strong central Japanese state didn't appear until the eighth century <b>AD</b>.:shrug: Just sayin'. And if we're going to make the age of a particular civilization a qualification for international influence or UN Security Council inclusion, then the US wouldn't be influential or seated at all.

Cote - The links to Hamas aren't hazy. Japan is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and it isn't just President Bush that is saying Iran is "mean". You're welcome to believe that the US doesn't deserve a place on the security council, but you are in a definite minority there.

Actually, the 'destruction of Israel' was a mistranslation of 'dissolution.' He believes in a Palestinian state, which not an extremist belief whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, Iran has more place on the UN security council than the United States does -- they're pursuing a nuclear program (which NO ONE has any proof is military!) against the UN's recommendations, but the US went to war with a sovereign country and completely destroyed a delicate religious balance without UN approval. Which has cost more lives and put the world at more risk?
Choochoo, it was more the usage of "mature" that bothered me, not necessarily your opinion that Japan is better suited. I found "mature" ironic because Iran was home to one of the world's most ancient civilizations, one that outdates Mesopotamia by centuries. And my problem with this whole discussion is that people seem to have no real complaints about Iran: they might bomb Disney World some day? They have possible hazy links to terrorist groups? President Bush says they're mean? I don't find these arguments convincing. The only real problem is that they are pursuing a nuclear enrichment program against UN orders... but it is a program that they have repeatedly said is not military, and they're doing so alongside many other efforts to cut back on oil dependence, which supports their claim that they want nuclear energy just for electricity. I think Iran is on the right path right now by modernizing and taking their first steps away from a theocracy, and I think US and UN criticism is not the right means of encouragement.

Actually, the 'destruction of Israel' was a mistranslation of 'dissolution.' He believes in a Palestinian state, which not an extremist belief whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, Iran has more place on the UN security council than the United States does -- they're pursuing a nuclear program (which NO ONE has any proof is military!) against the UN's recommendations, but the US went to war with a sovereign country and completely destroyed a delicate religious balance without UN approval. Which has cost more lives and put the world at more risk?Choochoo, it was more the usage of "mature" that bothered me, not necessarily your opinion that Japan is better suited. I found "mature" ironic because Iran was home to one of the world's most ancient civilizations, one that outdates Mesopotamia by centuries. And my problem with this whole discussion is that people seem to have no real complaints about Iran: they might bomb Disney World some day? They have possible hazy links to terrorist groups? President Bush says they're mean? I don't find these arguments convincing. The only real problem is that they are pursuing a nuclear enrichment program against UN orders... but it is a program that they have repeatedly said is not military, and they're doing so alongside many other efforts to cut back on oil dependence, which supports their claim that they want nuclear energy just for electricity. I think Iran is on the right path right now by modernizing and taking their first steps away from a theocracy, and I think US and UN criticism is not the right means of encouragement.

There are a multitude of reasons Japan is more mature and better suited for the position (in addition to the reasons UD mentioned).
Let's start with the fact that Iran funds Hamas, and possibly Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Check out the UN Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm. Funding terrorist groups is probably in direct opposition to this, yes?
Let's also not forget about the fact that Iran is consistently defying the Security Council when it comes to their nuke-you-ler (ha!) program. How convenient it would be for Iran to get a seat on the council and veto that enrichment ban? Yes, it would be so much easier to obliterate Israel, and with a nuclear partnership with Russia and Cuba coming down the pike, possibly Disney World. It's a small world after all...
Lastly, Japan funds the UN second behind the US.
I do my research, thank you. Do you?

There are a multitude of reasons Japan is more mature and better suited for the position (in addition to the reasons UD mentioned). Let's start with the fact that Iran funds Hamas, and possibly Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Check out the UN Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm. Funding terrorist groups is probably in direct opposition to this, yes? Let's also not forget about the fact that Iran is consistently defying the Security Council when it comes to their nuke-you-ler (ha!) program. How convenient it would be for Iran to get a seat on the council and veto that enrichment ban? Yes, it would be so much easier to obliterate Israel, and with a nuclear partnership with Russia and Cuba coming down the pike, possibly Disney World. It's a small world after all...Lastly, Japan funds the UN second behind the US.I do my research, thank you. Do you?

Cote - Has France preached about the destruction of Isreal? Iran has. Can France be linked to terrorist organizations, like those we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Iran has been. Is that enough of a reason to not trust Iran's intentions? Yes

Um, choo choo... what is 'a more mature country' supposed to mean? And why are all of you so anti-Iran? France has nuclear capacity too, and no one is blocking them from the UN Security council. I find if frightening that all of a sudden US public opinion is turned against Iran, when in fact Ahmadinejad's election should have been a step forward. Stop listening to President Bush and do a little research before you start making statements like 'Iran can't be trusted.'

well you have to remember that there are nations that are in support of iran in the hopes that if they need the help, they've got an ally close by. that's not the case for anyone who's a US ally - but oh well. i think that it's really interesting about all the stuff that's going on in north western europe though - those open seats and all that going to plenty other countries. i wonder what it's going to fortell for the future.